The Commission on Accreditation for Corrections worked toward standards that would serve to protect the public, assist other criminal justice agencies, and provide just and humane care in the management of adult and juvenile offenders. While extensive national, State, and local standards already existed, none was comprehensive enough to be used for accreditation, and most were too general in language for auditors to seek compliance, too specific to their institution or to a particular ideal, and out-of-date with regard to significant court decisions. The Commission thus gathered all existing standards for reference in its task and employed expert correctional consultants for key aspects of the many and varied correctional alternatives. The best standard writers were those with the ability to see the entire continuum of activity within their specialty and provide standards to cover all important details within that continuum. The ground rules for standards drafting were to cover only one concept or correctional practice at a time to write that standard clearly and specifically, including explanations where needed, to use the present tense in simple declarative sentences, and to overwrite. While overwriting may have produced too much detail, the standard was rewritten to allow for instances where correctional institutions may vary widely from each other; in these cases, institutions were required to have documentation explaning their choice of a particular practice or approach. The goals also were to prescribe the best possible corrections practices achievable in the U.S. The standards were then field tested in a wide range of agencies representing good administrative and operational practice. Comments were thus received directly from those who would be using the standards, were reviewed, and included where appropriate before final approval by the Commission. This process ensured maximal participation by experts and practitioners.